I’ve noticed while perusing some book review blogs that a number of them will not post a review if they rate the book below three stars. Now, while I appreciate that they are attempting to cut these writers a break, that doesn’t seem entirely right. This seems like a way to try and make it seem as if all books are essentially equal, which they are not. There are good books, bad books, okay books, fantastic books, all right books, “eh” books, “not for me” books, and a plethora of others out there, and people need to be able to tell one from the other. Although, I will say that the star rating system is somewhat flawed, in that people judge the stars differently. A five star rating to one person may be a three star to another. But that doesn’t mean that if a book is deserving of two stars, and you can provide evidence why, then the review shouldn’t be posted.
Books are judged on two things: Cover and star rating, which really shouldn’t be the case. All books should be given a fair chance, but that’s just not how the world works. So, if a really bad book has an amazing cover, but the two star ratings are nowhere to be found, are people being ripped off because they think they are getting a book that isn’t as good as they think? If a bad book only has reviews by the author’s mom and friends giving it a 4.9 average star rating, but every book blog the author has gone to gave it two stars and just didn’t post about it, is that really fair for the reader or the author? How can the author improve if their only feedback is from people who don’t want to discourage them, or are afraid to be honest about how they really feel about their work?
What do you think? Do you post reviews when you rate a book less than three stars? Do you think book review blogs should?